nanushka

This is how I read it as well. I don't recall anything from the complaint that suggests that, as @On Pointe puts it, "the company has a duty to monitor [its employees'] thoughts, communications and activities."

Maybe, but not necessarily. I don’t know who his employer is, and it would depend on whether that employer has a habit of improperly tolerating abusive behavior that it is aware of or should be aware of. That’s what would make it “systemic,” and that’s what Waterbury seems to be alleging of NYCB. There are indeed cases of individual “bad apples,” much as that phrase gets abused. It’s possible that, at his workplace, Hall is such an individual. ETA: I don’t think Waterbury’s claim is that NYCB should have monitored the private behavior of all its employees. I think her claim is that they knew bad stuff was going on and had a habit of overlooking it. Again, that’s what made it allegedly a “systemic” problem.

Waterbury's complaint does not seem to be primarily that NYCB failed to protect its dancers from every possible threat coming from inside or outside the company; it seems to be primarily that NYCB failed to stop (some of) its dancers from transgressing appropriate norms of behavior and from violating the rights of their colleagues and of other vulnerable individuals. In other words, NYCB (according to Waterbury) has a systemic issue because it allowed (some of) its dancers to get away with bad behavior. The appropriate parallel, it seems to me, would be if ABT implicitly or explicitly tolerated improper and harmful behavior by some of its dancers — not if ABT failed to protect its dancers from every possible threat. It seems more reasonable to me to criticize an institution for doing the former than for doing the latter.

Personally, if I were changing in front of one or more people I generally feel the perfectly comfortable changing in front of, and if I discovered I had been surreptitiously photographed in that situation and that the photos had been shared with others, I would consider that a violation of my trust and autonomy in an intimate situation.

Many rape victims, I would imagine, enjoy having sex in situations where their autonomy is not being violated. By this same logic, it seems to me, those particular victims might not find their violation unbelievably painful.

I don't get that sense. I think there's a sense of urgency to move forward with the search, to move things closer to resolution, but I don't get the sense that it would be a problem if the right candidate were to be ready to take on the role a year from now.

Considering intra-organizational concerns is, by definition, not really PR.

But it has not yet been established with any certainty that that makes the evidence uncovered in the search inadmissible in a civil proceeding. Again, Waterbury is not law enforcement, so I believe that she has more latitude to engage in such a search, particularly when Finlay has willingly given her access to his laptop (with, so far as we know, no verbal or other restrictions on what she could do with it).

Thank you so much for sharing this, kellie!

Mmm, yes, interesting, his use of the present tense may be significant. And actually, does he say that he didn't circulate them? He says he didn't circulate "the photos that were sent to me." He could have circulated other photos he took himself — of that "single consenting adult" whose photos he now possesses, or even of others if he has subsequently deleted them.

True, and (forgive me, I've had trouble at times keeping all the details straight) is there any specific action Ramasar himself has been directly accused of that he explicitly denies in that post?

I'm not sure we know exactly what Waterbury saw before she took any action to search further, though — and does "probable cause" really exist as a concept relating to the collection of evidence by private individuals in a civil case? I don't remember encountering the phrase outside the context of evidence collection by legal/governmental authorities.

Well, certainly many of us might agree with that as a notion, but the question of whether he would actually have grounds to successfully invoke it as a bar to the admissibility of evidence in a civil case is a rather different question. I have doubts that he would, though, and I still do after a quick skim of the article posted by @KayDenmark. (Thanks for finding that.) I'd be interested to hear from any lawyers, or others more familiar with the law in this matter, who could provide further sources that might shed light on the issue.

Oh, I don't know that. I was responding to your claim: I didn't think @onxmyxtoes, whose post you were responding to, had been referring specifically to Ramasar and Catazaro.

I thought there was a reference to the sharing of a photo of a company dancer taken (surreptitiously, I thought) while she was changing. Is that not accurate?

Just to clarify, in saying "I don't see why they matter," I of course don't mean to suggest that others shouldn't discuss them. (Forgive me for momentarily discussing the discussion here, simply for the sake of clarifying that I was not discussing the discussion! 😁) I'm definitely interested in considering the effects of her case on the institution — I'm just not sure her particular motives are knowable, or that they have an impact on what particular effects her legal claims will have.

Setting aside the problematic characterization of the alleged behavior as simply "looking at pictures of naked girls" (not really the essence of what Waterbury has accused the men of, as @aurora has pointed out above), which part of the phrase is being disputed here? "Rampant"? That generally means "widespread," and is not necessarily a description of the severity of the action. "Sexual misconduct"? Murdering people is bad; that doesn't mean mugging people isn't also bad. I don't see what the purpose is of making comparisons, unless it's to excuse the behavior that Waterbury has alleged. ETA: I see @minervaave and I were posting at the same time. Ditto to the above.

THANK YOU, Drew, for so effectively conveying (in your whole post, but especially in this paragraph) what I've been thinking and feeling while taking in these responses to Waterbury's claims. The first represents a woeful ignorance of the realities of how acute psychological distress can actually manifest itself. The second — well, I don't see why it matters in the least how she found the text messages, etc. Maybe she was snooping — maybe she had suspicions and those led her to snoop. (If her allegations are true, she apparently had good reason.) Even if I knew that to be the case (and as others have pointed out, there are some very good explanations for how she could have found them without snooping, so I see no need to grant that), I would not think that it matters. As for the third: we have no way of knowing Waterbury's (possibly complex mix of) motivations for taking action (assuming that we're not all willing to just believe what she says are her motivations — and it's clear that some are not), but again I don't see why they matter, so long as her claims have a basis in demonstrable evidence. A victim doesn't need to be a saint to deserve justice or reparation; if she did, we'd have little use for a legal system.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm curious how the Bayadère, "in a version by Anna-Marie Holmes," compares to the Lanchbery and to the Minkus original.

There's no definite article, though, so the implication is "some."

I think it's pretty common for the NYT online articles, before they've gone to print, to be changed in such ways, as new info comes in. They don't put notices for those early additions like they do for corrections, changes, etc.

Broadway World seems to be using NYCB's own language (though I'm not sure from what source — would have to go back and check NYCB's original statement), as the NYT article prints it with a direct quote: I don't see that they are "conceding that they have intruded"; whether it's an "intrusion" or not would seem to be a question that's yet to be definitively answered (though certainly arguments for both sides have been given).

Oh interesting, that ¶ was added to the article since it was initially posted here this morning. I still have the old window open on my browser and it's not there. Thanks for clarifying! I assume the update was in response to a longer statement somewhere that the NYT is just quoting a part of. The complete absence of any expressed remorse is striking, but that may have been somewhere else in the original source.

Where was Ramasar's statement? I haven't come across one but would be interested to read.

Oh dear, two full runs of Swan Lake? I hope that doesn't become the new yearly standard. Already I feel like I could bear their giving it a rest, say every 5th or 6th Met season. If that season will now be 5 weeks, the percentage of space on the Met schedule that the annual SL run takes up (assuming they continue with that tradition) is going to nearly double.